The John and Laura Arnold Foundation secretly funded a wide-area surveillance system for Baltimore, according to news reports.
Last week, the NPQ nonprofit newswire covered the story of the private funding of a surveillance system that would have monitored the streets of Baltimore secretly from the sky. The secrecy began with the funding mechanism, which bypassed the public scrutiny that the usual budgetary processes would have necessitated. The grant was made anonymously by Laura and John Arnold and run through a donor-advised fund at the Baltimore Community Foundation, whose president claims he knew nothing about it.
Anyway, now the Arnolds would like to claim that the outrage caused by the way the project was planned and funded entirely without public input is all part of a healthy process of public dialogue:
“We haven’t created a position as to whether or not Baltimore should use it. This is the first of many steps to evaluate whether the technology should be used,” said Laura Arnold, a Houston-based philanthropist who is paying for the surveillance with her billionaire husband, John. “No program would be successful unless they address these issues [of privacy]. They’re never going to reduce crime in Baltimore or any city unless the community is part of the solution. This is all very healthy.”
Laura Arnold is a lawyer, which you may be able to detect in the following statement:
As supporters of the ACLU, we deeply recognize the concerns and the tradeoffs that need to be made on privacy. Not only do we fully respect and support that process; for us, we don’t see it as a contradictory thing. We should have this conversation.
Although police department officials have denied that the program was secret, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and city council members said they, at least, were entirely in the dark until the publishing of an expose in Bloomberg Businessweek. No wonder they did not want to share! Now, a public hearing on the program is being scheduled by the city council. Maryland Public Defender Paul DeWolfe says the program should be halted immediately.
Laura Arnold would never, she said, “presume to tell you what’s best for your neighborhood.” I think the neighborhood might see that differently. Philanthropic money in public systems is enough of a complication and an end-run around democracy. Secret philanthropic money in public systems—especially in systems of policing—is an affront to taxpayers.—Ruth McCambridge
The Arnold Foundation is better known for its support for charter schools and its animus towards public pensions.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Closer than you think !
Freida Golden PhD 254-640-1643 Sent from my iPhone
>
The Arnold Foundation is also BETTER KNOWN for using their money to invest in Security/Police/Law Enforcement “initiatives” that later manifest as a Cash Cow.
If Baltimore ends up liking the surveillance technology, and wanting more of it long-term, then they will contract with a company created and controlled by….well, Guess Who!
Gotta keep those dollars flowing into the Phony Philanthropic Pockets.
Let’s invade people’s privacy for fun and profit. I am sure the Arnolds are getting tax write-offs and credits for their “civic contribution.”
Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog.
This story is just nuts.
If this doesn’t make people think about these foundations and their crazily out-sized role, nothing will.
“Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and city council members said they, at least, were entirely in the dark ”
I mean, come on! How can they just conduct experiments on these people with no consent of any kind?
“Baltimore Community Foundation”- If, in contrast to what they say they knew, they were aware of the Arnold activity, there is further reason to investigate the municipally-named foundations. A disproportionate number of them are advocates for charter schools. They mask their noxious views with claims of concern for green issues.
The grant was made anonymously by Laura and John Arnold and run through a donor-advised fund at the Baltimore Community Foundation, whose president claims he knew nothing about it.
Community foundations have become slush funds and bankrollers for projects preferred by their contributors. These foundations are functioning as temporary holding companies for cash. You are correct that many distribute funds on behalf of supporters of charter schools and other ventures. I think it improbable that no one at the Baltimore Community Foundation knew of the grant. There is an active category of “Anonymous” for donors who want to remain out of public view. As a lawyer, Laura Arnold would know how to work the system. She appears to think that wealth in the USA bestows the privilege of bypassing public deliberations on many matters, including surveillance systems.
In a reply, Laura Chapman writes: “There is an active category of ‘Anonymous’ for donors who want to remain out of public view. As a lawyer, Laura Arnold would know how to work the system. She appears to think that wealth in the USA bestows the privilege of bypassing public deliberations on many matters, including surveillance systems.”
Another term for what you describe as “anonymous” is “dark money.” But my hope is that, tonight, the Arnolds will look out their second-story bedroom window with a view of the city and imagine a drone buzzing around out there in the dark.
And drones are for sale to the public.
If such folks as the Arnolds really want a reasonable and decent dialogue with INFORMED and participatory community members, why don’t they spend their hard-earned money by paying their taxes and lending support to all sorts of educational programs that would serve those Baltimore people over the long term, including adult education programs? Education is not a guarantee, but it’s the best long-term pipeline we have for developing those informed and participatory community members (not to mention for reforming criminals).
By the way, how is the prison education system in Baltimore at present? That’s the more difficult, but more appropriate way to approach crime, don’t you think?, than installing a surveillance system that would go far to encroach on the freedoms of ALL who live in Baltimore? And whose doing the looking? And what then for the rest of us in other cities? Good grief. Haven’t you yourself read anything about political philosophy?
And while we are at it, the “we hate government” thing doesn’t make it in a truly democratic arena where “the government” is ACTUALLY based on an “of the people, for the people, and by the people” idea. That idea doesn’t call for “trust in the government.” Rather, it’s an experiment. It calls for ongoing and adequate oversight by “the people” and so by representatives who, in fact, are committed to PUBLIC, and not to CORPORATE interests; especially where those corporate interests are about destroying that governmental idea and wresting control over all.
If billionaires think “the people” are ignorant, then put your money in truly-PUBLIC education and not in schooling that, on principle, avoids questioning YOU, your divided CORPORATE INTERESTS, and the political ground we all stand on. If we lose that ground, so do you. The choice is (1) protecting that democratic-governmental idea, or (2) by omission or intent, inviting corporate ideologue manipulation, where carrot-and-stick methods are used to keep from being regulated by public-interest ideas and to keep “the people” uninformed–even ignorant. Corporations and their plutocrats need informed public oversight as much as, or more than, purportedly democratic governments.
“. . . why don’t they spend their hard-earned money. . . ”
Hard-earned??
I guess robbing and thieving can entail “hard-earned” money.
Hello Duane–that “hard-earned money” comment was written with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek–doesn’t show up on a blog. Catherine
I live in a suburb very close to Balto City lines. I am curious to know how many knew of this and who they are. This wasn’t sky-eye chopper 13 flying overhead for a news report. This was deliberate spying on citizens by a drone. I thought that these drones had to have a license from the FAA? I know the news choppers have to notify the FAA when they are up in the air due to flight patterns from the nearby airport.
Agree. U.S. Congressional representatives should be asking if the FAA and/or Homeland Security have an approval process for surveillance from planes and satellites e.g. Mark Z-berg’s satellite. They should ask who owns and gets to view the data that is gathered, the investor, funders and/or government.
Is the push to put all children on data tracking tablets (by eliminating with charter scam control the teachers who might oppose it) any different than cameras in the sky or centrally controlled (what they call “autonomous”) vehicles? Why did Bill Gates call for a camera in every classroom? And what the heck secret are those private, heavily armed guards protecting at those two huge, rectangular Google facilities on either coast? What data are they collecting now? Why do we continue to surrender the individual’s privacy and collective strength in the name of security for a “nation at risk”? Why are people so afraid of each other that they let themselves be surveilled and their lives scripted? Their unions vanquished. Their public schools closed. Their children making mouth bubbles. All around the world.
“Don’t Worry, Be Happy was a number one jam.
Damn, if I say that you can slap me right here…
Fight the power.
We’ve got to fight the powers that be.”
The “start up grants” are a scam. The billionaire gets their policy preference with no democratic input and then the public gets stuck with the ongoing cost for the billionaires policy preference.
If your lawmakers are still rubberstamping these “gifts” then you need smarter lawmakers. Nothing is “free”. These are transactions. If they don’t know that then they shouldn’t be taking the money.
Big money destroys!
More evidence of what Orwell and Huxley warned us about in “1984” and “A Brave New World”.
Could it be that surveillance does not create good citizens? What sort of person would have such a dim view of potential humanity that they see watching people as the only way to control them? Wait! I know. It is a person who is a control freak. The same attribute might lead one to be a billionaire, but I would not know about large sums of money.
People do not become good citizens by being watched and threatened. An honest man is a product of having the freedom to sin but refusing to do so in the face of temptation. Whispers of accusation cemented Stalin’s iron hand over the Russian revolution, but it did not create a vibrant, responsive citizenry. A generation later, the revolutionary experiment crumbled. How often have I known a child raised under the watchful eye of a protective parent stray when the real freedom of life presents opportunities too attractive to pass up.
If we want communities to really build good citizens, we should seek to make communities that reward hard work and kindness.
Off-topic- The AFL-CIO has a petition to sign. “A recent NLRB decision restored rights for research and teaching assistants at private universities to organize. Administrators at Harvard, Columbia, the New School and, other prestigious universities are running a nasty campaign to get RA and TA’s to vote against forming a union.” The only way in which the university community can rout the influence of oligarchs and anti-democratic forces on campus, is to protect the people who are the university.